Jump to: Complete Features | Incomplete Features | Complete Epics | Incomplete Epics | Other Complete | Other Incomplete |
Note: this page shows the Feature-Based Change Log for a release
These features were completed when this image was assembled
Feature Overview
Insights Advisor for OpenShift is integrated within OpenShift Cluster Manager. This has some limitations for adding new features and also for sharing codebase between RHEL Advisor and OCM Insights Advisor tab. Insights Advisor for OpenShift lacks certain features from the RHEL UI, the codebase is not 1:1 clone.
As a customer of Insights I will have same/very similar user experience with Insights for OpenShift and Insights for RHEL. The workflows will share the main concepts, the UI elements will be same and features introduced to Advisor will be automatically considered for both all supported platforms.
As OpenShift users I will still see integrations of Insights Advisor within OpenShift Cluster Manager that shows aggregated information for customer account and single cluster view on Advisor data. These integration will point to new Insights Advisor for OpenShift app that will be tightly integrated into OpenShift Cluster Manager.
Goals
Requirements
Benefits
Questions to answer...
Out of Scope
Background, and strategic fit
Documentation Considerations
OCP WebConsole, in the main dashboard, has an Insights Advisor widget, which has been redirecting users to OCM. Due to the Insights Advisor tab decommission in OCM, the links should point to Advisor instead.
4.10 code freeze = 28 January (marking the task as urgent)
This Feature is a general "catch all" for the time being. There are a number of existing priorities from Q1 that should be aligned with existing priorities below but if not, assign to this feature as needed.
In order to get a better overall portfolio view, we'll leverage this Feature to gather work that doesn't fall into other existing priorities on this board. As this list grows, the portfolio priority grooming team will look to split out or handle appropriately.
A list of specific needs or objectives that a Feature must deliver to satisfy the Feature. Some requirements will be flagged as MVP. If an MVP gets shifted, the feature shifts. If a non MVP requirement slips, it does not shift the feature.
requirement | Notes | isMvp |
---|---|---|
< How will the user interact with this feature? >
< Which users will use this and when will they use it? >
< Is this feature used as part of current user interface? >
< What does the person writing code, testing, documenting need to know? >
< Are there assumptions being made regarding prerequisites and dependencies?>
< Are there assumptions about hardware, software or people resources?>
< Are there specific customer environments that need to be considered (such as working with existing h/w and software)?>
< What educational or reference material (docs) is required to support this product feature? For users/admins? Other functions (security officers, etc)? >
<What does success look like?>
< Does this feature have doc impact? Possible values are: New Content, Updates to existing content, Release Note, or No Doc Impact?>
<If unsure and no Technical Writer is available, please contact Content Strategy. If yes, complete the following.>
Question | Outcome |
Console provides support UI for operators which is dynamically enabled when the operator is installed; by using feature flags against presence of CRDs. While operators have their own release cadence separately from OpenShift which makes for alignment of UI to API difficult. As new features are released for the operator, the UI becomes out of sync with APIs and customers must wait till the following OpenShift release to get any new UI.
Console extensions:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HW5_cl6cOX5P14PQN-1_8c60o9dMY6HbFDRftH6aTno/edit
Dynamic Plugins:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19BAFo_8BtMZVvKsU-bE61bZpSydeYONkCMWntMU9NgE/edit
Enhancement proposal:
https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/441
When this image was assembled, these features were not yet completed. Therefore, only the Jira Cards included here are part of this release
Today, all configuration for setting individual, for example, routing configuration is done via a single configuration file that only admins have access to. If an environment uses multiple tenants and each tenant, for example, has different systems that they are using to notify teams in case of an issue, then someone needs to file a request w/ an admin to add the required settings.
That can be bothersome for individual teams, since requests like that usually disappear in the backlog of an administrator. At the same time, administrators might get tons of requests that they have to look at and prioritize, which takes them away from more crucial work.
We would like to introduce a more self service approach whereas individual teams can create their own configuration for their needs w/o the administrators involvement.
Last but not least, since Monitoring is deployed as a Core service of OpenShift there are multiple restrictions that the SRE team has to apply to all OSD and ROSA clusters. One restriction is the ability for customers to use the central Alertmanager that is owned and managed by the SRE team. They can't give access to the central managed secret due to security concerns so that users can add their own routing information.
Provide a new API (based on the Operator CRD approach) as part of the Prometheus Operator that allows creating a subset of the Alertmanager configuration without touching the central Alertmanager configuration file.
Please note that we do not plan to support additional individual webhooks with this work. Customers will need to deploy their own version of the third party webhooks.
Team A wants to send all their important notifications to a specific Slack channel.
As described in https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/blob/ba3dc219eecc7799f8216e1d0234fd846522e88f/enhancements/monitoring/multi-tenant-alerting.md#distinction-between-platform-and-user-alerts, cluster admins want to distinguish platform alerts from user alerts. For this purpose, CMO should provision an external label (openshift_io_alert_source="platform") on prometheus-k8s instances.
tldr: three basic claims, the rest is explanation and one example
While bugs are an important metric, fixing bugs is different than investing in maintainability and debugability. Investing in fixing bugs will help alleviate immediate problems, but doesn't improve the ability to address future problems. You (may) get a code base with fewer bugs, but when you add a new feature, it will still be hard to debug problems and interactions. This pushes a code base towards stagnation where it gets harder and harder to add features.
One alternative is to ask teams to produce ideas for how they would improve future maintainability and debugability instead of focusing on immediate bugs. This would produce designs that make problem determination, bug resolution, and future feature additions faster over time.
I have a concrete example of one such outcome of focusing on bugs vs quality. We have resolved many bugs about communication failures with ingress by finding problems with point-to-point network communication. We have fixed the individual bugs, but have not improved the code for future debugging. In so doing, we chase many hard to diagnose problem across the stack. The alternative is to create a point-to-point network connectivity capability. this would immediately improve bug resolution and stability (detection) for kuryr, ovs, legacy sdn, network-edge, kube-apiserver, openshift-apiserver, authentication, and console. Bug fixing does not produce the same impact.
We need more investment in our future selves. Saying, "teams should reserve this" doesn't seem to be universally effective. Perhaps an approach that directly asks for designs and impacts and then follows up by placing the items directly in planning and prioritizing against PM feature requests would give teams the confidence to invest in these areas and give broad exposure to systemic problems.
Relevant links:
Plugin teams need a mechanism to extend the OCP console that is decoupled enough so they can deliver at the cadence of their projects and not be forced in to the OCP Console release timelines.
The OCP Console Dynamic Plugin Framework will enable all our plugin teams to do the following:
Requirement | Notes | isMvp? |
---|---|---|
UI to enable and disable plugins | YES | |
Dynamic Plugin Framework in place | YES | |
Testing Infra up and running | YES | |
Docs and read me for creating and testing Plugins | YES | |
CI - MUST be running successfully with test automation | This is a requirement for ALL features. | YES |
Release Technical Enablement | Provide necessary release enablement details and documents. | YES |
Documentation Considerations
Questions to be addressed:
Currently, webpack tree shakes PatternFly and only includes the components used by console in its vendor bundle. We need to expose all of the core PatternFly components for use in dynamic plugin, which means we have to disable tree shaking for PatternFly. We should expose this as a separate bundle. This will allow browsers to cache more efficiently and only need to load the PF bundle again when we upgrade PatternFly.
Open Questions
What parts of PatternFly do we consider core?
Acceptance Criteria
Requirement | Notes | isMvp? |
---|
CI - MUST be running successfully with test automation | This is a requirement for ALL features. | YES |
Release Technical Enablement | Provide necessary release enablement details and documents. | YES |
This Section:
This Section: What does the person writing code, testing, documenting need to know? What context can be provided to frame this feature.
Questions to be addressed:
As a user, I want the ability to run a pod in debug mode.
This should be the equivalent of running: oc debug pod
Acceptance Criteria for MVP
Assets
Designs (WIP): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b2n9Ox4xDNJ6AkVsQkXc5HyG8DXJIzU8tF6IsJCiowo/edit#
OCP/Telco Definition of Done
Feature Template descriptions and documentation.
Feature Overview
Enable customers to access Google services from workloads on OpenShift clusters using Google Workload Identity (aka WIF)
https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/concepts/workload-identity
Requirement | Notes | isMvp? |
---|---|---|
CI - MUST be running successfully with test automation | This is a requirement for ALL features. | YES |
Release Technical Enablement | Provide necessary release enablement details and documents. | YES |
This Section:
This Section: What does the person writing code, testing, documenting need to know? What context can be provided to frame this feature.
Questions to be addressed:
Dependencies (internal and external)
We need to ensure following things in the openshift operators
1) Make sure to operator uses v0.0.0-20210218202405-ba52d332ba99 or later version of the golang.org/x/oauth2 module
2) Mount the oidc token in the operator pod, this needs to go in the deployment. We have done it for cluster-image-registry-operator here
3) For workload identity to work, gco credentials that the operator pod uses should be of external_account type (not service_account). The external_account credentials type have path to oidc token along, url of the service account to impersonate along with other details. These type of credentials can be generated from gcp console or programmatically (supported by ccoctl). The operator pod can then consume it from a kube secret. Make appropriate code changes to the operators so that can consume these new credentials
Following repos need one or more of above changes
Enable sharing ConfigMap and Secret across namespaces
Requirement | Notes | isMvp? |
---|---|---|
Secrets and ConfigMaps can get shared across namespaces | YES |
NA
NA
Consumption of RHEL entitlements has been a challenge on OCP 4 since it moved to a cluster-based entitlement model compared to the node-based (RHEL subscription manager) entitlement mode. In order to provide a sufficiently similar experience to OCP 3, the entitlement certificates that are made available on the cluster (OCPBU-93) should be shared across namespaces in order to prevent the need for cluster admin to copy these entitlements in each namespace which leads to additional operational challenges for updating and refreshing them.
Questions to be addressed:
* What educational or reference material (docs) is required to support this product feature? For users/admins? Other functions (security officers, etc)?
* Does this feature have doc impact?
* New Content, Updates to existing content, Release Note, or No Doc Impact
* If unsure and no Technical Writer is available, please contact Content Strategy.
* What concepts do customers need to understand to be successful in [action]?
* How do we expect customers will use the feature? For what purpose(s)?
* What reference material might a customer want/need to complete [action]?
* Is there source material that can be used as reference for the Technical Writer in writing the content? If yes, please link if available.
* What is the doc impact (New Content, Updates to existing content, or Release Note)?
OCP/Telco Definition of Done
Epic Template descriptions and documentation.
<--- Cut-n-Paste the entire contents of this description into your new Epic --->
As a developer using OpenShift
I want to mount a Simple Content Access certificate into my build
So that I can access RHEL content within a Docker strategy build.
As a application developer or administrator
I want to share credentials across namespaces
So that I don't need to copy credentials to every workspace
As an OpenShift engineer
I want to know which clusters are using the Shared Resource CSI Driver
So that I can be proactive in supporting customers who are using this tech preview feature
None - metrics exported to telemetry are not formally documented.
QE can verify that the query/recording rule for cluster monitoring operator returns data if the cluster has the Shared Resource CSI driver installed and utilizes a SharedSecret or SharedConfigMap in a pod/workload.
Insights rules can potentially be created off of these exported metrics. This would allow CEE to identify which clusters are using SharedSecrets or SharedConfigMaps, especially if we are exporting mount failure metrics.
To implement, a prometheus query/recording rule needs to be added to the cluster monitoring operator. Once approved by the monitoring team, the metric data will be available on DataHub once 4.10 clusters are installed with the updated version of the monitoring operator.
As a cluster admin
I want the cluster storage operator to install the shared resources CSI driver
So that I can test the shared resources CSI driver on my cluster
Docs will need to identify how to install the shared resources CSI driver (by enabling the tech preview feature set)
Tasks:
Note that to be able to test all of this on any cloud provider, we need STOR-616 to be implemented. We can work around this by making the CSI driver installable on AWS or GCP for testing purposes.
The cluster storage operator has cluster-admin permissions. However, no other CSI driver managed by the operator includes a CRD for its API.
Upstream Kuberenetes is following other SIGs by moving it's intree cloud providers to an out of tree plugin format, Cloud Controller Manager, at some point in a future Kubernetes release. OpenShift needs to be ready to action this change
Bring together all the cloud controller managers (AWS, GCP, Azure), complete testing and prepare for final GA
A list of specific needs or objectives that a feature must deliver in order to be considered complete. Be sure to include nonfunctional requirements such as security, reliability, performance, maintainability, scalability, usability, etc. Initial completion during Refinement status.
Include use case diagrams, main success scenarios, alternative flow scenarios. Initial completion during Refinement status.
Include a list of refinement / architectural questions that may need to be answered before coding can begin. Initial completion during Refinement status.
High-level list of items that are out of scope. Initial completion during Refinement status.
Provide any additional context is needed to frame the feature. Initial completion during Refinement status.
Provide any additional customer-specific considerations that must be made when designing and delivering the Feature. Initial completion during Refinement status.
Provide information that needs to be considered and planned so that documentation will meet customer needs. Initial completion during Refinement status.
Which other projects and versions in our portfolio does this feature impact? What interoperability test scenarios should be factored by the layered products? Initial completion during Refinement status.
OCP/Telco Definition of Done
Epic Template descriptions and documentation.
<--- Cut-n-Paste the entire contents of this description into your new Epic --->
Initial work was started there: https://github.com/lobziik/cluster-cloud-controller-manager-operator/pull/1/files
Need to isolate provider specific code in respective packages and introduce interface to leverage it (regular and bootstrap manifests rendering should be there atm)
DoD:
Rebase aws-pod-identity-webhook from v0.1.0 to the latest release of v0.4.0 to address several bugs that have been fixed in the latest upstream AWS project https://github.com/openshift/aws-pod-identity-webhook.
Update aws-pod-identity-webhook to v0.4.0
A list of specific needs or objectives that a feature must deliver in order to be considered complete. Be sure to include nonfunctional requirements such as security, reliability, performance, maintainability, scalability, usability, etc. Initial completion during Refinement status.
Include use case diagrams, main success scenarios, alternative flow scenarios. Initial completion during Refinement status.
Include a list of refinement / architectural questions that may need to be answered before coding can begin. Initial completion during Refinement status.
High-level list of items that are out of scope. Initial completion during Refinement status.
Provide any additional context is needed to frame the feature. Initial completion during Refinement status.
Provide any additional customer-specific considerations that must be made when designing and delivering the Feature. Initial completion during Refinement status.
No impact to product documentation, closed OSDOCS-7971
Which other projects, including ROSA/OSD/ARO, and versions in our portfolio does this feature impact? What interoperability test scenarios should be factored by the layered products? Initial completion during Refinement status.
The aws-pod-identity-webhook deployed to AWS environments by the Cloud Credential Operator is forked from an upstream repository and must be periodically rebased to include upstream enhancements and fixes.
Rebase aws-pod-identity-webhook fork to include upstream enhancements and fixes.
Process:
1. Fork upstream into personal account
2. Clone Fork
git clone git@github.com:joelddiaz/amazon-eks-pod-identity-webhook.git
3. Add upstream remote
git remote add --fetch upstream https://github.com/aws/amazon-eks-pod-identity-webhook
4. Add OpenShift remote
git remote add --fetch openshift https://github.com/openshift/aws-pod-identity-webhook.git
5. Create branch for PR
git checkout -b rebase-master master
6. Merge openshift/master into rebase-master using ours strategy
git merge -s ours openshift/master
7. Make a list of carry commits (output by merge -s ours) and cherry-picked them into rebase-master branch. Evaluate the need to carry patches based on their inclusion in upstream.
This section includes Jira cards that are linked to an Epic, but the Epic itself is not linked to any Feature. These epics were completed when this image was assembled
An epic we can duplicate for each release to ensure we have a place to catch things we ought to be doing regularly but can tend to fall by the wayside.
As an adopter of the @openshift-console/dynamic-plugin-sdk I want to easily integrate into my development pipeline so that I can extend the OCP console.
Trying to pull in the dynamic-plugin-sdk into ACM is proving to be problematic. We would have to move to older dependencies. Integrating with webpack and typescript requires a very specific setup.
The dynamic-plugin-sdk has only really been used internally by OCP and is strongly tied to the setup and dependencies of OCP. For the dynamic-plugin-sdk to be externally consumable by adopters, it should be as easy to use as other webpack plugins such as HtmlWebpackPlugin or CompressionPlugin.
The console has many instances of old variables, $grid-float-breakpoint and $grid-gutter-width, controlling margins/padding and responsive breakpoints throughout the Admin and Dev Console. These do not provide spacing and behaviors consistent with Patternfly components which use their own variables, $pf-global-gutter-md, $pf-global-gutter, and $pf-global-breakpoint-{size}. By replacing these, the intent it to bring the console closer to a pure Patternfly structure and behavior, requiring less overrides and customizations.
Update webpack to the latest 4.x and update webpack loaders. This will help prepare us to move to webpack 5.
Update console from Cypress 6.0.0 to 8.5.0. Changes that impact us:
https://docs.cypress.io/guides/references/migration-guide#Migrating-to-Cypress-8-0
In the image-registry, we have packages origin-common and kubernetes-common. The problem is that this code doesn't get updates. We can replace them with more supported library-go.
OCP/Telco Definition of Done
Epic Template descriptions and documentation.
<--- Cut-n-Paste the entire contents of this description into your new Epic --->
As a developer using Jenkins to build my application
I want to use the base Jenkins agent image as a sidecar in my PodTemplate
So that I can use any s2i builder image in my Jenkins pipelines
QE will need to verify that the new pod templates can successfully execute a JenkinsPipeline build.
Documentation needs to be updated to explain how to use the new template.
Unclear if we need new CEE/PX materials beyond doc updates.
We currently have built-in pod templates for NodeJS and Maven, which use specialized agent images with NodeJS/Maven image.
Blog post here outlines the process: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2020/06/04/an-easier-way-to-create-custom-jenkins-containers/
The Groovy style of declaring in-line pod templates is deprecated in favor of a YAML-style format.
Existing documentation for the Jenkin pod templates: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.9/openshift_images/using_images/images-other-jenkins.html#images-other-jenkins-config-kubernetes_images-other-jenkins
OCP/Telco Definition of Done
Epic Template descriptions and documentation.
After investigating a complex Bugzilla involving many applications making queries to prometheus-adapter, we've noticed that we were lacking insights on the requests made to prometheus-adapter. To have such information for an aggregated API, the best would be to have audit logs for prometheus-adapter. This wasn't configurable before, but with https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/custom-metrics-apiserver/pull/92, upstream users should now be able to configure it.
Since this would greatly help in investigating prometheus-adapter Bugzilla in the future, it would be great if we allowed OpenShift users to configure the audit logs so that they could provide them to us.
Note for the assignee: as of the time of the creation of this ticket, the upstream PR hasn't been merged in custom-metrics-apiserver and thus wasn't synced in prometheus-adapter. So we will have to wait a bit before starting looking into this ticket.
DoD:
The console requires to know the network type capabilities to show/hide some Network Policy form fields.
As a result of https://issues.redhat.com/browse/NETOBSERV-27, this logic is implemented as a features document inside the console code. The console fetches the network type from the network operator and checks the supported features towards this document.
However, this limits the feature to admin users, as other logged-in users do not have permissions to fetch the network type.
This task aims to modify the current Cluster Network Operator to expose the network capabilities as an `sdn-public` Config Map, writeable only by the SDN, readable by any `system:authenticated` user.
Enhancement Proposal PR: https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/875
We want to configure 'default' and 'allowed' values in validation webhook for Guest Accelerators field in GCPProviderSpec. Also revendor it to include newly added Guest Accelerators field.
This can be done after https://github.com/openshift/cluster-api-provider-gcp/pull/172 is merged.
DoD:
Description:
Openshift on RHV is composed of the following subproject the team maintains:
Each of those projects currently uses the generated oVirt API project go-ovirt.
This leads to a number of issues:
Then came go-ovirt-client, go-ovirt-client-log, go-ovirt-client-log-klog and k8sOVirtCredentialsMonitor to the rescue!
The go-ovirt-client is a wrapper around the go-ovirt which contains all the error handling/retry logic/logs/tests needed to provide a decent user experience and an easy-to-use API to the oVirt engine.
go-ovirt-client-log is a library to unify the logging logic between the projects, it is used by go-ovirt-client and should be used by all the sub-projects.
go-ovirt-client-log-klog is a companion library to go-ovirt-client-log enabling logging via the Kubernetes "klog" facility.
k8sOVirtCredentialsMonitor is a utility for monitoring the oVirt credentials secret, which will automatically update the ovirt credentials is they are changed.
We aim to move all projects which are using the go-ovirt to use go-ovirt-client, go-ovirt-client-log and k8sOVirtCredentialsMonitor instead.
Benefits for the eng:
Benefits for the customers:
Acceptance criteria:
How to test:
Description:
Acceptance:
ovirt-csi-driver uses go-ovirt-client for 95% percent of all oVirt related logic.
T-shirt size: M
Provide an easy and successful experience for front end developers to build and deploy their applications
Currently, the front end dev experience is not positive. It's much easier for them to use other platforms. Improving the front end dev experience will enable us to gain more marketshare
Although we provide the ability for 2 & 3 today, the current journey does not match with the mental model of the front end developer
Desired UX experience
As a user, I want have the option to add additional labels to a Route, as I could do in OCP3. See RFE-622
The additional labels should only be added to the route, not the service or other components. The advanced option "Labels" should not be touched and these labels are added to all components.
As an small additional we should also show always the "Target port" since it also defines the Service port and to make this more clear, the "Target port" should be shown before the "Create a route to the Application" checkbox.
The following changes should be applied to the Import flow (from Git, from Container, ...) and to the Edit page as well:
This epic is mainly focused on the 4.10 Release QE activities
1. Identify the scenarios for automation
2. Segregate the test Scenarios into smoke, Regression and other user stories
a. Update the https://docs.jboss.org/display/ODC/Automation+Status+Report
3. Align with layered operator teams for updating scripts
3. Work closely with dev team for epic automation
4. Create the automation scripts using cypress
5. Implement CI for nightly builds
6. Execute scripts on sprint basis
To the track the QE progress at one place in 4.10 Release Confluence page
There are different code spots which maps the old action items "From Git", "From Dockerfile" and "From Devfile" to the new action "Import from Git".
We should avoid mapping different strings to the new version and instead update our tests so that the feature and page object files matches the latest frontend code.
Code areas I found are marked with
// TODO (ODC-6455): Tests should use latest UI labels like "Import from Git" instead of mapping strings
This section includes Jira cards that are linked to an Epic, but the Epic itself is not linked to any Feature. These epics were not completed when this image was assembled
Please read: migrating-protractor-tests-to-cypress
Protractor test to migrate: `frontend/integration-tests/tests/oauth.scenario.ts`
Large but straight forward
47) OAuth 48) BasicAuth IDP ✔ creates a Basic Authentication IDP ✔ shows the BasicAuth IDP on the OAuth settings page 49) GitHub IDP ✔ creates a GitHub IDP ✔ shows the GitHub IDP on the OAuth settings page 50) GitLab IDP ✔ creates a GitLab IDP ✔ shows the GitLab IDP on the OAuth settings page 51) Google IDP ✔ creates a Google IDP ✔ shows the Google IDP on the OAuth settings page 52) Keystone IDP ✔ creates a Keystone IDP ✔ shows the Keystone IDP on the OAuth settings page 53) LDAP IDP ✔ creates a LDAP IDP ✔ shows the LDAP IDP on the OAuth settings page 54) OpenID IDP ✔ creates a OpenID IDP ✔ shows the OpenID IDP on the OAuth settings page
Accpetance Criteria
As a follow up to OCPCLOUD-693, we need to, once all of the API definitions are present in openshift/api, migrate the existing code bases to use the new API locations.
This will include:
Complete all the 4.9 epic features automation user stories and merge it to master branch.
4.9 epics automation completion
Tech debt should be completed
Create the pr's for 4.9 epic user stories automation
Review it
Merge it to 4.10 master branch and 4.9 master branch
As a user, I want to store my delivery pipelines in a Git repository as the source of truth and execute the pipeline on OpenShift on Git events, so that I can version and trace changes to the delivery pipelines in Git.
This section includes Jira cards that are not linked to either an Epic or a Feature. These tickets were completed when this image was assembled
The CMO e2e tests create a bunch of resources. These should be cleaned up on a successful run. However:
In a CI context this is rarely a problem, however running the tests locally can be made quite awkward, especially repeated runs on the same cluster.
We should tag all resources created by the e2e tests with a label (app.kubernetes.io/created-by: cmo-e2e-test).
This will allow easy cleanup by deleting all resources with that label and will allow for checking proper clean-up.
DoD:
All e2e resources get properly tagged.
It is straight forward to ensure that future code changes don't skip adding this tag.
*USER STORY:*
As a customer or OpenShift engineer, I want to see the user agent for anything calling from OpenShift -> vSphere to eliminate troubleshooting guesswork.
*DESCRIPTION:*
A question in #forum-vmware was raised where we identified that the user-agent may not be configured for all OpenShift components calling to vSphere API.
https://coreos.slack.com/archives/CH06KMDRV/p1627368902058800
*Required:*
Audit of OpenShift components calling to vSphere API to make sure user agent strings are set appropriately.
*Nice to have:*
How can this be prevented in the future? How can we minimize maintenance costs added by new PRs/bugs reported from this spike?
*ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:*
New PRs or bug reports for each effected component.
Before platformStatus, the operator used to get information about AWS and GCP from the install-config config map. This code can be removed.
Add a Makefile rule in CMO to execute all the different rule that are used for verification and validation. Currenctly, some of them might not be at the right place, for example `check-assets` which is part of `generate` despite not being responsible of any generation. https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1151/files#r629371735
DoD:
The static authorizer feature has landed in upstream kube-rbac-proxy. Lets use it by configuring a static authorizer for all requests that hit a /metrics endpoint.
DoD:
Acceptance criteria:
Currently, Telemeter is not equipped with configurable request limit for receive endpoint (for full context see: https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1416). It is using the default limit defined in the code base, however it seems this limit might not be suitable for our usage.
As a part of this ticket, it should be:
1) Understood what is the appropriate limit for request size for our use cases
2) Make the limit configurable in Telemeter via a flag
3) Deploy the changes, initially to the staging environment, to enable our team to test it.
The current integration of prometheus-adapter in OpenShift uses the platform Prometheus as a backend to get metrics. The problem with this design is that we are getting metrics from 2 different Prometheus instances which don't have replicated data, so two queries sent at the same time to prometheus-adapter might yield different results since the underlying promQL queries executed by prometheus-adapter might be on different Prometheus servers. The consequence is that we end up having inconsistent data across multiple autoscaling requests.
This can be easily tested by running:
$ while true ; do date; oc adm top pod -n openshift-monitoring prometheus-k8s-0 ; echo; sleep 1 ;done Mon Jul 26 03:55:07 EDT 2021 NAME CPU(cores) MEMORY(bytes) prometheus-k8s-0 208m 4879Mi Mon Jul 26 03:55:08 EDT 2021 NAME CPU(cores) MEMORY(bytes) prometheus-k8s-0 246m 4877Mi Mon Jul 26 03:55:09 EDT 2021 NAME CPU(cores) MEMORY(bytes) prometheus-k8s-0 208m 4879Mi Mon Jul 26 03:55:10 EDT 2021 NAME CPU(cores) MEMORY(bytes) prometheus-k8s-0 246m 4877Mi
This isn't a bug in itself since it was designed that way, but we could do better by using thanos-querier as a backend instead of the platform Prometheus because it will duplicate the metrics from both instances and serve one consistent result based on the data that it will get from the Prometheuses.
DoD:
As mentioned in [1], the cluster monitoring operator doesn't define the relatedObjects field in the ClusterOperator manifest which is initially deployed by CVO [2].
If the CMO pod fails to start, the must-gather might miss information from the monitoring namespace. Note that once CMO runs, it will update the initial ClusterOperator object with the proper information [3].
[1] http://mailman-int.corp.redhat.com/archives/aos-devel/2021-May/msg00139.html
[2] https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/blob/master/manifests/0000_50_cluster-monitoring-operator_06-clusteroperator.yaml
[3] https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/blob/a6bc9824035ceb8dbfe7c53cf0c138bfb2ec5643/pkg/client/status_reporter.go#L49-L63
Goal
We have several use cases where dynamic plugins need to proxy to another service on the cluster. One example is the Helm plugin. We would like to move the backend code for Helm to a separate service on the cluster, and the Helm plugin could proxy to that service for its requests. This is required to make Helm a dynamic plugin. Similarly if we want to have ACM contribute any views through dynamic plugins, we will need a way for ACM to proxy to its services (e.g., for Search).
It's possible for plugins to make requests to services exposed through routes today, but that has several problems:
Plugins need a way to declare in-cluster services that they need to connect to. The console backend will need to set up proxies to those services on console load. This also requires that the console operator be updated to pass the configuration to the console backend.
This work will apply only to single clusters.
Open Questions
Acceptance Criteria
cc Ali Mobrem [~christianmvogt]
As per [1], the jsonnet code for managing thanos-ruler resources should reuse the upstream kube-thanos project.
This section includes Jira cards that are not linked to either an Epic or a Feature. These tickets were not completed when this image was assembled
Please review the following PR: https://github.com/openshift/aws-pod-identity-webhook/pull/193
The PR has been automatically opened by ART (#forum-ocp-art) team automation and indicates
that the image(s) being used downstream for production builds are not consistent
with the images referenced in this component's github repository.
Differences in upstream and downstream builds impact the fidelity of your CI signal.
If you disagree with the content of this PR, please contact @release-artists
in #forum-ocp-art to discuss the discrepancy.
Closing this issue without addressing the difference will cause the issue to
be reopened automatically.
Please review the following PR: https://github.com/openshift/multus-admission-controller/pull/85
The PR has been automatically opened by ART (#forum-ocp-art) team automation and indicates
that the image(s) being used downstream for production builds are not consistent
with the images referenced in this component's github repository.
Differences in upstream and downstream builds impact the fidelity of your CI signal.
If you disagree with the content of this PR, please contact @release-artists
in #forum-ocp-art to discuss the discrepancy.
Closing this issue without addressing the difference will cause the issue to
be reopened automatically.
The issue found while testing HOSTEDCP-400 and HOSTEDCP-401.
Hypershift operator installed with flags:
--platform-monitoring=operator-only --enable-uwm-telemetry-remote-write=true --metrics-set=telemetry
Service monitors and pod monitors in the control plane:
[jiezhao@cube hypershift]$ oc get servicemonitor -n clusters-jz-test NAME AGE catalog-operator 45m cluster-version-operator 45m etcd 46m kube-apiserver 46m kube-controller-manager 45m monitor-multus-admission-controller 43m monitor-ovn-master-metrics 43m node-tuning-operator 45m olm-operator 45m openshift-apiserver 45m openshift-controller-manager 45m [jiezhao@cube hypershift]$ oc get podmonitor -n clusters-jz-test NAME AGE cluster-image-registry-operator 46m controlplane-operator 47m hosted-cluster-config-operator 46m ignition-server 47m
In OCP management web console, go to Observe->Targets:
1. Status of service monitor 'monitor-multus-admission-controller' is Down, error: Scraped failed: server returned HTTP status 401 Unauthorized. It doesn't have cluster id in target labels 2. Target of pod monitor 'cluster-image-registry-operator' is missing, not shown
Please review the following PR: https://github.com/openshift/multus-admission-controller/pull/78
The PR has been automatically opened by ART (#forum-ocp-art) team automation and indicates
that the image(s) being used downstream for production builds are not consistent
with the images referenced in this component's github repository.
Differences in upstream and downstream builds impact the fidelity of your CI signal.
If you disagree with the content of this PR, please contact @release-artists
in #forum-ocp-art to discuss the discrepancy.
Closing this issue without addressing the difference will cause the issue to
be reopened automatically.
Description of problem:
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
1. 2. 3.
Actual results:
Expected results:
Additional info:
Please review the following PR: https://github.com/openshift/aws-pod-identity-webhook/pull/167
The PR has been automatically opened by ART (#forum-ocp-art) team automation and indicates
that the image(s) being used downstream for production builds are not consistent
with the images referenced in this component's github repository.
Differences in upstream and downstream builds impact the fidelity of your CI signal.
If you disagree with the content of this PR, please contact @release-artists
in #forum-ocp-art to discuss the discrepancy.
Closing this issue without addressing the difference will cause the issue to
be reopened automatically.
https://redhat-internal.slack.com/archives/C04TMSTHUHK/p1725998554253779
> We're using version 0.1.0, while the current version is 0.5.7
Please review the following PR: https://github.com/openshift/aws-pod-identity-webhook/pull/183
The PR has been automatically opened by ART (#forum-ocp-art) team automation and indicates
that the image(s) being used downstream for production builds are not consistent
with the images referenced in this component's github repository.
Differences in upstream and downstream builds impact the fidelity of your CI signal.
If you disagree with the content of this PR, please contact @release-artists
in #forum-ocp-art to discuss the discrepancy.
Closing this issue without addressing the difference will cause the issue to
be reopened automatically.
Please review the following PR: https://github.com/openshift/aws-pod-identity-webhook/pull/196
The PR has been automatically opened by ART (#forum-ocp-art) team automation and indicates
that the image(s) being used downstream for production builds are not consistent
with the images referenced in this component's github repository.
Differences in upstream and downstream builds impact the fidelity of your CI signal.
If you disagree with the content of this PR, please contact @release-artists
in #forum-ocp-art to discuss the discrepancy.
Closing this issue without addressing the difference will cause the issue to
be reopened automatically.
Please review the following PR: https://github.com/openshift/multus-admission-controller/pull/90
The PR has been automatically opened by ART (#forum-ocp-art) team automation and indicates
that the image(s) being used downstream for production builds are not consistent
with the images referenced in this component's github repository.
Differences in upstream and downstream builds impact the fidelity of your CI signal.
If you disagree with the content of this PR, please contact @release-artists
in #forum-ocp-art to discuss the discrepancy.
Closing this issue without addressing the difference will cause the issue to
be reopened automatically.
Refactor name to Dockerfile.ocp as a better, version independent alternative
Please review the following PR: https://github.com/openshift/multus-admission-controller/pull/69
The PR has been automatically opened by ART (#forum-ocp-art) team automation and indicates
that the image(s) being used downstream for production builds are not consistent
with the images referenced in this component's github repository.
Differences in upstream and downstream builds impact the fidelity of your CI signal.
If you disagree with the content of this PR, please contact @release-artists
in #forum-ocp-art to discuss the discrepancy.
Closing this issue without addressing the difference will cause the issue to
be reopened automatically.
Please review the following PR: https://github.com/openshift/aws-pod-identity-webhook/pull/180
The PR has been automatically opened by ART (#forum-ocp-art) team automation and indicates
that the image(s) being used downstream for production builds are not consistent
with the images referenced in this component's github repository.
Differences in upstream and downstream builds impact the fidelity of your CI signal.
If you disagree with the content of this PR, please contact @release-artists
in #forum-ocp-art to discuss the discrepancy.
Closing this issue without addressing the difference will cause the issue to
be reopened automatically.
Description of problem:
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
1. 2. 3.
Actual results:
Expected results:
Additional info: